Tired motorist jailed over death

[tigger1]

stigcv8 said:

What do you think when you see a school mum attempting to cross a busy road, with her kids, only 100 yards from a pelican crossing? Have you ever considered using that same thought and applying it to cyclists who refuse to ride on cycle paths?

No, because it's not comparable in the slightest. One is a situation where somebody is to lazy to do something that is almost certainly safer for them and their children; the other is somebody making a conscious decision to either improve their progress or make their journey safer (yes, safer, on a road, with other fast moving road users)- cycling on a road is "normal" behaviour, walking on one is dangerous, and where provided crossing should be used to aid safety.

*Very very few* cyclists 100% refuse to use cycle paths, but many will refuse to use the bad, unsafe ones.

[stigcv8]

Selmer said:

stigcv8 said:

eccles said:

if you read the thread i linked to someone there suggests that the cyclist was actually in a lay-by when he got hit. so the cyclist couldn't have been more helpful, yet he still got hit.

I'm not even arguing about what he was doing and there is no avoiding the fact he was killed by someone who has been charged and found guilty of being at fault. Maybe he was in a layby, maybe not, but regardless of the facts this country seems to run heavily on the results of what happens so maybe now cyclists will be enforced to ride in the cycle lanes provided (as and when they are) as they should do already.

I'm really starting to feel like I've had enough of this forum. Pistonheads: Ignorance Matters

Ignorance? Surely that is ducking the head in the sand and not debating something like this?

[Selmer]

stigcv8 said:

Selmer said:

stigcv8 said:

eccles said:

if you read the thread i linked to someone there suggests that the cyclist was actually in a lay-by when he got hit. so the cyclist couldn't have been more helpful, yet he still got hit.

I'm not even arguing about what he was doing and there is no avoiding the fact he was killed by someone who has been charged and found guilty of being at fault. Maybe he was in a layby, maybe not, but regardless of the facts this country seems to run heavily on the results of what happens so maybe now cyclists will be enforced to ride in the cycle lanes provided (as and when they are) as they should do already.

I'm really starting to feel like I've had enough of this forum. Pistonheads: Ignorance Matters

Ignorance? Surely that is ducking the head in the sand and not debating something like this?

How about actually getting on a bike and seeing what the roads are really like. Experiencing that feeling of no matter how hard you try to behave in a courteous manner on your bike, you still get lumped in with the general disdain for cyclists.

[bga]

BliarOut said:

Personally I cycle on the path whenever possible as I think it is safer. The law is irrelevant when it comes down to personal safety.

That's an interesting point - I also frequently use paths (mainly for ease of progress), despite armed with the knowledge that they are not necessarily safer, The perception of safety being an important factor.

There is a fair bit of research here: www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

I've got some better links at home, but what they all show is that cyclists are rather adept at falling off & hurting themselves with no other vehicular interaction

[bga]

Selmer said:

How about actually getting on a bike and seeing what the roads are really like. Experiencing that feeling of no matter how hard you try to behave in a courteous manner on your bike, you still get lumped in with the general disdain for cyclists.

It's no different to the "boy racer" stigma. A relatively small number of muppets make it difficult for the majority.

[BliarOut]

bga said:

BliarOut said:

Personally I cycle on the path whenever possible as I think it is safer. The law is irrelevant when it comes down to personal safety.

That's an interesting point - I also frequently use paths (mainly for ease of progress), despite armed with the knowledge that they are not necessarily safer, The perception of safety being an important factor.

There is a fair bit of research here: www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

I've got some better links at home, but what they all show is that cyclists are rather adept at falling off & hurting themselves with no other vehicular interaction

I just prefer to have my collisions with soft squishy things traveling at similar speeds as opposed to hard lumps of metal traveling much faster. No hard and fast rules for me, I'll just cycle wherever feels safest.

[bga]

BliarOut said:

I'll just cycle wherever feels safest.

I'm not going to criticise anyone for that!

What irks me are the people that assume cyclists must use paths if provided based on their impatience & ignorance.

[phlea]

I often use the road where a cycle path exists.

Why? Travelling at c.20mph on a path shared with pedestrians is not safer for anybody, and having to give way at every side road seriously impedes progress. Cycle lanes can be a safer bet, but not for everybody in all situations.

[Parrot of Doom]

stigcv8 said:

so maybe now cyclists will be enforced to ride in the cycle lanes provided (as and when they are) as they should do already.

And maybe some motorists should actually try driving while awake, and looking where they're going?

You must be a fan of the blame culture. I piss on cycle lanes.

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Tuesday 30th January 10:57

[redgriff500]

I frequently use cyclelanes and find i can make great progress...

Except sometimes I find them a bit narrow...

Maybe I need to try a smaller car.

[stigcv8]

phlea said:

I often use the road where a cycle path exists.

Why? Travelling at c.20mph on a path shared with pedestrians is not safer for anybody, and having to give way at every side road seriously impedes progress. Cycle lanes can be a safer bet, but not for everybody in all situations.

so adjust your speed :dozey:

[cougie]

The cyclist concerned was one of the best riders we had in the UK. He would easily have been able to ride at 20mph plus for hours on end with no bother at all. Cycle paths arent built for that speed, and thats irrelevant as the stretch of road he was on didnt have one.

Even a cycle lane wouldnt have helped him - he was in a layby when he was hit.

In no way was this the cyclists fault. It was entirely the fault of the driver asleep at the wheel.

[osteoadam]

as a cyclist, previously international standard and riding up to 18,000 miles a year on the road, i can say that the standard of driving is shocking. i think some cars come past as close as possible while others are totally unaware that cyclists are there. cycle lanes just aren't worth using. they are covered in shit, stop and start and in greater disrepair then the poor roads! drivers have to be accountable for there actions!

[cougie]

stigcv8 said:

phlea said:

I often use the road where a cycle path exists.

Why? Travelling at c.20mph on a path shared with pedestrians is not safer for anybody, and having to give way at every side road seriously impedes progress. Cycle lanes can be a safer bet, but not for everybody in all situations.

so adjust your speed :dozey:

So Stig - on a road with no cycle lane/path and where there are cyclists around - do you adjust your speed ?

[pdV6]

stigcv8 said:

Selmer said:

stigcv8 said:

eccles said:

if you read the thread i linked to someone there suggests that the cyclist was actually in a lay-by when he got hit. so the cyclist couldn't have been more helpful, yet he still got hit.

I'm not even arguing about what he was doing and there is no avoiding the fact he was killed by someone who has been charged and found guilty of being at fault. Maybe he was in a layby, maybe not, but regardless of the facts this country seems to run heavily on the results of what happens so maybe now cyclists will be enforced to ride in the cycle lanes provided (as and when they are) as they should do already.

I'm really starting to feel like I've had enough of this forum. Pistonheads: Ignorance Matters

Ignorance? Surely that is ducking the head in the sand and not debating something like this?

Start a new thread if you want to debate the use of cycle paths - its irrelevant here.

[osteoadam]

you have to.

my point is, if it had been a motor cyclist would people have different thoughts? zac ,the cyclist in question, had the abbility to cycle at 30mph, the speed limit!